Process vs. Content

[Teresa Michelsen]

> As a facilitator my task is to manage process and I am not involved in the content; I won't be affected by it after the session (unless I'm facilitating my own work group which has its own special challenges).

This quote came from another topic and it piqued my interest. Maybe it's an old topic, but I'd be curious how many people agree that in their field there is a strict separation of content and process. In my field of environmental cleanup and restoration facilitation, I am more often than not hired for my content expertise and expected to contribute to the content in sometimes minor and sometimes significant ways - in addition to all of the facilitation and process activities.

It's to the point where I am (somewhat frustratingly) generally not hired in related fields (e.g., forestry, air quality, land use planning), but ONLY in those areas that I have direct technical career experience (and a doctorate) in, which is primarily cleanup and habitat restoration. Not only is technical expertise required in each RFP, but so is detailed familiarity with specific regulations, laws, and implementing programs.

Now granted, the competition is fierce in my area. There may be more environmental mediators in the Pacific NW than anywhere else in the US, so they have the option of getting both. Still, there doesn't seem to be any way to convince our clients that a good scientifically trained facilitator can work in a variety of science-related fields, never mind other types of disputes.

Over the years, I've begun to wonder to what degree they are right. Facilitation theory tells us we deal with process, not content. Yet, a facilitator that cannot directly work with certain kinds of content is not always that useful to a group. I have certainly been a party in processes that were slowed down by facilitators who didn't understand the terms being used and couldn't take appropriate notes. They also couldn't tell when a particular issue was a red herring or side discussion vs. the main focus of the group, so didn't know how to adequately allocate time.

Beyond that, it seems to me that there are more and more jobs where I am being asked to actually contribute to the content directly, or where I need to substantially work with it to serve the group. Two examples below, it's getting long already I know, but this is an issue near and dear. I'd love to hear your comments.

1) I recently facilitated a statistical workshop. Four national experts were invited to answer a series of questions posed by several agency workgroups who were facing similar statistical issues. As usual, the questions were far more extensive than there was really time available to handle. Not only did I spend a ton of time in advance working with all the workgroups to define and shape the questions to meet all their various policy goals, but the experts ended up sending me thoughts in advance on the questions and I synthesized their input for use at the workshop, then came up with followup questions for them to meet the agencies' needs. To even understand the questions and discussions required a knowledge of multivariate matrix inversion, covariance matrices, principal component analysis, nonparametric statistics, etc. I spent a lot of time having debates with workgroup members about hypothesis tests appropriate to the regulations, false positives vs. false negatives, etc. In the end it went off extremely well, but as a facilitator, I would have to say that though the process aspects were important, they were dwarfed by working with the content in terms of the overall success of the workshop. I felt quite stretched and I have a PhD in these areas; I can't even imagine how a general facilitator could have successfully managed this process.

2) I was recently hired to facilitate among EPA, the state cleanup agency, a chemical company, and a Port related to a very complex cleanup EPA and the State are doing that's right in the way of a major intermodal terminal redevelopment the Port is planning. Maybe this is really a sort of facilitation/negotiation, I don't know. Many environmental projects appear to be more like that - they have group facilitation aspects, but lots of behind the scenes work. In this case, it was previous experience (as a regulator and consultant) working with Port redevelopment/cleanup projects that led them to choose me, and it was ideas I was able to bring to the table from those experiences that were able to break the positioning and the logjam. This was not telling them what's right for them, as much as giving examples of what can be possible, and putting alternatives on the table that they weren't imagining before. Having a clear understanding of Port business issues and intermodal terminals, as well as cleanup of these types of facilities, is what is giving me credibility with both sides (in addition to being a good facilitator, which they expect).

While it frustrates me that I can't get more work in related areas that I think would be interesting and enjoyable to facilitate, at the same time I can really see the value of the content knowledge that an appropriate facilitator brings to the table for projects like these. People are often looking for fresh ideas as well as process and improvement in communication. And I am typically asked to write summary reports (and sometimes recommendations) that involve at least some degree of working with the content.

So what are your experiences? Are there other fields where the line between process and content is not so clear? I don't think I'd get hired if I insisted on being content-free - that's why there are environmental rosters of ADR professionals. It does pose additional challenges in that one has to be very dissociated from ownership of one's own contributions or ideas, in favor of those of the group. If something helps or works for them great, if not there has to be an easily observed humility and a clear willingness to not continue to press it. I've also worked with facilitators who went over that line and it can be a real problem. While it would be easier to stay out of it altogether, I don't see the facilitators in our field as having that luxury - we have to find and walk that fine line, which is in a different place for each group.

Teresa Michelsen
Mediation Solutions
www.mediation-solutions.us

[Ned_Ruete]

Teresa Michelsen wrote:

So what are your experiences? Are there other fields where the
line between process and content is not so clear? I don't think
I'd get hired if I insisted on being content-free - that's why
there are environmental rosters of ADR professionals.

Teresa,

I'm not sure I mean the same thing when I say "content" as you do.
Content-neutral means I don't come in having "sides" or have any values
about what the answer should be. For example, if you came to your second
example with a passionate belief that cleanup was more important than an
intermodal facility, you would have been of no value as a facilitator.

One balance we all have to strike as facilitators is how much content
_knowledge_ we need to be able to serve the group vs. how much content
_ignorance_ will allow us to ask the unaskable questions, challenge the
unchallenged assumptions, etc. But that is different than content _values_.

My best understanding comes from Beene, Kenneth, "Conceptual and Moral
Foundations of Laboratory Method," _The Laboratory Method of Changing and
Learning_, Beene, Bradford, Gibb, and Lippitt eds., Palo Alto: Science and
Behavior Books, 1975, pp. 47-8

"More than one kind of values is at stake in any conflicted human situation.
One kind may be called substantive values. A community, for example, may be
divided and in conflict over the legalization of the sale and use of
marijuana. Substantive positions develop around the issue. . . Another kind
of values at stake in such a situation may be called methodological values
[sic]. These have to do with the ways in which such conflicts should be
settled in making and remaking of decisions or policies which are valid and
mutually acceptable, at least ideally, to all the parties in conflict. There
may be concern with the quality of the evidence used in settling the issue,
its validity and it reliability. There may be concern with the inference
processes by which meanings for action are derived from the evidence by
various partisans. The human effects of the means of persuasion used --
coercion, group pressures against the expression of minority opinions,
exploitation of anxieties and fears, etc. -- may be an object of concern.
The quality of communication, of listening, of empathy between contending
parties may be examined and pointed out as important in affecting the
quality of the settlement reached. Concern may be generated that parties in
the conflict do not learn anything from the conflict, do not invest
imagination in creating solutions integrative of the substantive values in
conflict and embodying new values in exchange, that energy is invested only
in trying to impose rigid, prepared positions. . . [A]dvocates of
appropriate, relevant, and creative methodologies to be applied in and to
controverted situations may and do appear along with advocates of various
substantive positions."

In your first example, to exercise your role as the keeper of the
methodological values, you had to be very well versed in the mathematical
aspects of the statistical inference processes used in deriving meaning from
the evidence. That did _not_ mean that you brought any substantive values to
your role - in fact, you mentioned making no substantive contribution at
all, only bringing the knowledge needed to _deal with_ the content.

My definition of a facilitator is someone who can leave their substantive
values at home, but will DIE FOR their methodological values. THAT is
separation of content and process.

What do others think?

Ned Ruete
East Lyme, CT USA

[Gary_Rush]

I am one who firmly believes that the facilitator must remain content neutral at all times. Whenever I've seen a facilitator step into content, it didn't work well.

I agree that when a facilitator doesn't understand the terms, it can slow down the workshop. However, I don't need a background to be able to pick up the terms. I need to listen well. The terms are used by the participants. For instance, I facilitated a group of Oncologists - before the workshop, I didn't know what Oncology was. However, in preparation, I picked up their terms and in the workshop, I listened well. I was feeding back to them what they said. At the end of the workshop, they came up to me and thought that I had worked in health care my entire career. It's the ability to listen and pick up terms in context that makes a difference.

I do get upset when clients want to hire facilitators who have experience in their business. I've facilitated a wide variety of businesses with no problem. The clients who want business experience may have previously hired facilitators who didn't listen well enough and did slow down the process. Instead, look for facilitators who know how to listen and who are expert in process - the methodology of the workshop. It's a tough sell, but important for the industry.

That's my take on it.

[ruth]

Yes, I have encountered many prospective clients who want their facilitators to understand their business, issues, terms, and problems in a substantive way. It is important to me in talking to them to clearly determine whether they are looking for a neutral facilitator or a content expert/consultant. I think it is incredibly dangerous to us as professional facilitators and to the groups we serve to mix the two as we work on individual projects and meetings, even though we may offer multiple services in our overall mix of business offerings (e.g., neutral facilitation, training, content expertise).

Having said that, I will admit to having a great deal of technical experience in the environmental field. I do not work as a technical expert; I market myself and work as a neutral facilitator in a wide variety of environmental venues/topics. It helps me both win work and follow/support group discussions. It also complicates my life in terms of working extra diligently to stay neutral and to walk away when I realize I might not be able to do so.

What has saddened me deeply over the past four years is that three of my major clients have hired me explicitly to be a neutral facilitator to address the damage done to groups and organizations by consultants who offer expertise in a specific area, who have called themselves and worked as facilitators, and have mixed the two to such an extent that the groups and organizations are now seriously damaged. Trust between parties can be pretty low in the area of environmental conflict, and it will take YEARS for the parties in these three situations to heal the harm done by people who have facilitated without neutrality. The majority of my income now comes from these types of projects. One engaged me four years ago and is expected to run another 2-6 years. The others are multiple-year projects as well.

I love the facilitation work, but the damage that has been done to the groups and organizations I work with is heartbreaking, frustrating, and infuriating. It also makes my work that much more difficult because I am not only helping the group work on the substance of its issues, but in repairing what should not have been broken by a facilitator in the first place.

Ruth Nicholson (formerly Siguenza)
Nicholson Facilitation & Associates, LLC
Mill Creek, Washington USA
ruth@nicholsonfacilitation.com

[Ned_Ruete]

Gary Rush wrote:

<snip>

I do get upset when clients want to hire facilitators who have
experience in their business. I've facilitated a wide variety of
businesses with no problem. The clients who want business
experience may have previously hired facilitators who didn't
listen well enough and did slow down the process. Instead, look
for facilitators who know how to listen and who are expert in
process - the methodology of the workshop. It's a tough sell,
but important for the industry.

Gary, I run into the same problems trying to get hired as a business
analyst. A real business analyst is someone who uses listening,
facilitation, and problem solving skills to help a business tease out what
their business should be like after automation so that the automation can be
successful, and then converts that to specifications that systems people can
use to build a system that supports the future processes of the business.
Experiences with different businesses, different industries, and different
ways of organizing work give the business analyst more possibilities to help
broaden the thinking of the people designing the outcomes.

But everyone who hires business analysts looks for exprience in their
industry, most look for experience with the software package they've already
decided to implement (even though they don't yet understand the processes
they're supporting), and a few look for experience with their proprietary
systems - even thought they're not looking internally! I don't think it has
anything to do with past experience - it has everything to do with _not
enough_ past experience to know how to say what they really need, so they
say they need someone just like themselves only with the time to do
something they think they understand (but don't). They are required by HR to
put required skills and experience in the position description, and they put
in what they know.

As facilitators, we need to be helping people connect in ways that let them
know there are important skills out there besides the ones they personally
have, and then helping them process that experience so that they explicitly
learn the lesson.

BTW, that's why I oppose certification of facilitators: it just creates
another box to put people in and supports the "I've got to have
requirements" mindset...

What do others think?

Ned Ruete

[Ned_Ruete]

Ruth wrote:


Yes, I have encountered many prospective clients who want their
facilitators to understand their business, issues, terms, and
problems in a substantive way.

Knowing a substantial amount about the subject of their business is not the
same as having substantive values about the content of the facilitation.

Only when we have a clear vocabulary and make it a shared vocabulary with
our clients can we explain what we do and don't do, what we need and don't
need, what we offer that is different from what they think they need.

Ned

[Teresa Michelsen]

I'm not sure I mean the same thing when I say "content" as you do.
Content-neutral means I don't come in having "sides" or have any values
about what the answer should be. For example, if you came to your second example with a passionate belief that cleanup was more important than an intermodal facility, you would have been of no value as a facilitator.

One balance we all have to strike as facilitators is how much content
_knowledge_ we need to be able to serve the group vs. how much content
_ignorance_ will allow us to ask the unaskable questions, challenge the
unchallenged assumptions, etc. But that is different than content _values_.

Ned Ruete
East Lyme, CT USA

I do like the way you have put this. I certainly agree that you have to leave your values at home about the content. One question still in my mind is to what extent you should leave your "content substance" at home. In the statistical example, clearly that was impossible and yet, it was easy to be value-neutral. In other examples, it is more difficult, and here I am interested especially in what Ruth has said (hi Ruth!).

So for example, when a group is stuck, and you know of other projects or examples that would help broaden their range of alternatives (without pushing them in any one direction or another) or even just that would help them think outside their usual regulatory boxes, is it wrong to add those to the mix (sometimes asked, sometimes unasked)? This is along the lines of the Port example. I don't know what they'll ultimately do, and remaining among their choices are those they've always had. But they are all excited about having new options to consider. If nothing else, if they end up falling back an enforcement response, they will feel as though they've considered all of the other alternatives and have made a more thorough decision.

So what I would ask Ruth about the damaged processes she has encountered, since her background/projects and mine are similar, what and how did they get damaged (more specifically, without breaking confidentiality?). I have certainly encountered processes damaged by poor facilitators - communications gotten worse, people not feeling heard, etc. - but that has more to do with process than content. I'd be interested in hearing about cases where introduction of content by the facilitators damaged the process, mostly to avoid ever doing anything like that.

I'm also interested in distinguishing between whether the issue was the content itself, or working with the content in a non-neutral way (i.e., the content value problem).

And lastly, several people have mentioned the idea that we have to work with our clients to better understand this issue. I agree wholeheartedly, and I agree it would make us better, well-rounded facilitators if we got to work in more fields. But I don't know how to do it. I get hired for environmental jobs primarily through national rosters and hiring processes set up by EPA and others. I'm a bit player in this process, and every RFP has detailed requirements related to substantive and legal/regulatory expertise. I don't know how to change that system. Ideas, anyone? I do have the feeling that if the RFPs weren't written that way from the start, client expectations might be different.

Teresa Michelsen
Mediation Solutions
www.mediation-solutions.us

[Mary_Jackson]

Here's what I think I heard; please let me know if you heard
something differently:

Neutrality is good, ignorance is bad.

Ruth said she walks away when she doesn't want to be neutral; Gary
said he preps, learns terms, listens hard when he doesn't have prior
content knowledge.

Maybe this isn't a debate about process vs. content at all? Maybe
we need both minimum content understanding and process based on
neutrality.

-------------------------
Msg sent via Internet America Webmail - www.internetamerica.com

[Simon_Wilson]

Greetings to all contributors to this thread. I’ve been fascinated by this exchange – it’s prompted me to question how often I am tempted to cross over from the neutral facilitator role when working on projects where I have subject knowledge. It’s been good to have a reminder to resist that temptation!

For me, three things emerge from this.

First, many facilitators and their clients are working under severe time pressures. We are asked to design events with a minimum of preparation and achieve results with groups very quickly (most events I run are now around 5 hours’ actual contact time for the group). Clients are looking for people who can cut to the essence of an issue very quickly and they assume that this means subject knowledge. As facilitators we need to resist the temptation to ‘lean on’ our subject knowledge in order to achieve this, and use our facilitation skills instead.

Second, many facilitators are required to be ‘facilitators plus’. This week I am working on a tender document which asks for someone with experience of six things, one of which is ‘excellent facilitation skills’, and which include two areas of detailed subject knowledge (both of which I have). In my business we are constantly having to make judgements about whether the ‘facilitation component’ of work we are bidding for is big enough to pass our rough test of a ‘facilitative approach’. This is because, as has been mentioned by many contributors to this thread, it is rare for tenders to reflect facilitation as a core activity.

Third, I think that there is a role for the IAF in helping to change this over time. Like it or not (and I don’t like it) many clients, particularly in the public sector, are required to specify skills and competences when putting work out to tender. As a taxpayer I am glad that public money is not just chucked at any old consultant. The trouble is that they are specifying the wrong competences. It seems to me that the IAF globally and in the regions can make it easier for facilitators by
i) Raising the profile of facilitation as a profession with a defined set of competences
ii) Making the case for the Certified Professional Faciliator standard as one way of judging competence in this field
iii) Helping facilitators feed back to clients and commissioners of services about how facilitation competences can better be reflected in the way that projects are specified.

Please keep the discussion going – I am finding it both challenging and useful.

Best wishes

Simon

[Jay_Wisecarver]

Hi Mary and all,

Sorry first try in sending mail via the new format of GF and I
may send out garbage. (hope my content does not come out that way
also.)
;-)

I think I heard about the same thing as you did Mary.

Over the years these issues (neutrality in facilitation and
nuances between facilitation/training-facilitation of learning)
have been raised over and over in the field and on the list, but
I feel we may be digging out a few more nuances each time.

A spin which I am interested in following up is what was raised
in another thread - the Art of Hosting
http://www.iaf-forum.org/showthread.php?t=102 ('http://www.iaf-forum.org/showthread.php?t=102')

This thread came during the changeover in systems. I recommend
those who missed it take a read.

I like how facilitation/hosting is framed Myriam Laberge's blog -
Co-Creative Power
http://myriam-musing.blogspot.com/2007/11/facilitation-and-hostin ('http://myriam-musing.blogspot.com/2007/11/facilitation-and-hostin')
g-continuum-or.html
And her dual questions:
Outer Facilitation During Event: Constantly Ask - What Will Serve
the Group Now?
Inner Facilitation During Event: Constantly Ask - How Can I
Nurture Emergence?

I also like how Rosa in the final post of the thread stated:
"I've been finding for a while now, that I much prefer the term
"taking all sides" to "neutrality"..."

Seems to me that is what we are trying to do through/in our role
of facilitator/orchestrator of facilitation - take all sides so
we can move or maybe better move with the group towards ... a
common space/place.



Best,

Jay



-----Original Message-----
From: Mary_Jackson [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 12:39 AM
To: IAF-mail@wisecarver.us
Subject: RE: [Group Facilitation-t-229] Process vs. Content

IAF Forum Instant Email - Group Facilitation

You may reply to this email to post a reply to the forum.
You can also begin a new thread by sending an email to

Remember to add anywhere in the subject the following :
IAF-Forum-Response
______________________
CURRENT MESSAGE FROM: Mary_Jackson

Here's what I think I heard; please let me know if you heard
something differently:

Neutrality is good, ignorance is bad.

Ruth said she walks away when she doesn't want to be
neutral;

Gary said he preps, learns terms, listens hard
when he doesn't have prior content knowledge.

Maybe this isn't a debate about process vs. content at
all?

Maybe we need both minimum content understanding
and process based on neutrality.

[Stephen_Thorpe]

It is an interesting discussion. I particularly like the wording of "taking all sides" - it resonates well with a "holding the group" or "holding the space" concept I have. I'm also heartened by Simons thinking on "Raising the profile of facilitation as a profession" and would like to know where in the forum ideas might be forwarded outside the focus of this particular topic. I wonder too what might be done to address the issue Ruth raises of those 'consultants' out there giving us all a bad rep.

While I see that many facilitators do see their role as that of a process guide (no arguments there), there is this strong debate around the level of involvement in the content of a group’s work. Some facilitators see that they have been chosen to facilitate due to their particular expertise in a particular domain of knowledge and they are happy to share their content expertise with a group. Others argue that this involvement in content changes the role from that of facilitator to ‘facilitative other’ be that that of a facilitative trainer, facilitative leader, coach, manager, consultant, expert or similar (see Hunter, 2007; Schwarz, 2002 for more).

For me, content involvement by the facilitator is essentially introducing information that is not available from within the group, and, like others, I see this transfer of knowledge as performing a 'training role'. At the least it can be perceived to be in a training role of some kind. Clients may in fact be wanting a facilitator that can also train in some areas of their key domain. Knowing the language and underlying industry concepts can be really useful when facilitating having worked for a few years in the IT research domain. However, a content intervention can potentially influence the outcomes of a group. An action that could potentially breach part of clause 6 of our Statement of Values and Code of Ethics for Group Facilitators (IAF, 2004) which states “We are vigilant to minimize our influence on group outcomes”.

Sometimes a group can get really stuck and in order to best assist a group to move forward, the facilitator may sometimes be called upon to fulfill other roles such as a coach, a trainer, and a content expert. Approaches to this in-process role changing vary. Some recommend that the facilitator transparently change roles with the group – taking their ‘facilitator’ hat off and taking up another role briefly before putting their ‘facilitator’ hat back on (see Wilkinson, 2004). Others recommend a not substantive content involvement (Schwarz, 2002). In these approaches a desire to best be in service to the group is often held when facilitators face this content dilemma.

Good discussion that might form a basis for a really useful essay for our IAF Journal! Anyone interested?
http://www.iaf-forum.org/showthread.php?t=146


Stephen Thorpe